FTFY
The ironic part is that animals like cows and pigs that we don’t thinking about twice before murdering can actually be pets and love you back. A lion cares nothing about you. He will kill you with no compunction.
You guys remind me of chicks who reject nice guys to be with the bad boy who beats them up.
Untrue, though I wouldn’t recommend a big cat as a pet. They definitely do get attached to humans.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZIQUb-d4GQ
Warning: You may cry after watching this.
Raising livestock for food =/= having a pet.
Killing a wild animal so dickless can have a trophy on his wall =/= self defense.
If you guys are going to get worked up about this this guy killing one lion, then you have to stop eating lion and using lion products entirely or you’re a hypocite.
Missing the point =/= Valid reply.
If one was concerned about killing animals, one should begin their charity at home; by not raising livestock for food (or buy meat and so on.) That will surely save more lives. But those live would be of cows and pigs, just not that sexy in people’s value systems, apparently.
Killing a wild animal is slightly more in keeping with the law of the jungle, in that, given the opportunity it will kill you. It will never be your pet. (With exception noted by STL above; plus others like Elsa and Sonali in India, all of whom were raised from childhood to be around people. Not truly wild.) Not implying that Mr BSD killed in self-defense.
Bottom line, crying over Cecil as you stuff your mouth with a cheeseburger with bacon toppings is pretty hypocritical.
At least a lion has a theoretical chance to defend itself. Broccoli can’t even run away. Vegetarians are cowardly killers.
It’s perfectly logical to find it upsetting that someone killed an animal just for enjoyment. It’s like that weird kid who burnt ants with a magnifying glass in school. It’s sick.
If you enjoy beating up pigs before slaughtering it and then it bacon, and still cry over Cecil then yeah that might be hypocritical.
On the other hand, it’s equally sick that these armchair philosophers are publically shaming the dentist. Or the morally superior people on FB whose good deeds consist of reposting a BBC article on Cecil.
Bottom line: people who post on facebook are usually really dumb, so it’s important to prune your friends list often.
For those of you who truly want to make change and are willing to put your money where your mouth is, I am going to found a charity specifically to protecting and preserving our majestic lions. This will be a legitimate 501c3 allowing you to claim said donation as a deduction on the schedule A form of your personal income tax filing (Greenie can vouch). Contact me in private for details and where to send money orders, cashiers checks, and cash.
*Fine Print*
Operating Expenses will consume at least 99% of all donations with the entire remainder going towards the preservation and protection of lions.
We already have the Clinton foundation.
Go start a #PlantLivesMatter
Completely tangential thought -
Many times we don’t eat all parts of the plants and leave those alone. Fruit trees for example. Why not put a cow under anesthesia, surgically remove fleshy part of the rump (tasty and not critical for survival) and let her regrow it over a year? Renewable meat!
If you ask the pig whether it wants to be beaten up or slaughtered, I think I know what its answer should be.
Not that I am advocating animal torture, but to imply that it is worse than taking an animal’s life is stupid. Look up slaughterhouse videos on YouTube. Those cows an pigs are not willing victims. And this is a modern slaughterhouse, forget barbaric old “religious” customs. (You know who you are.)
No yes I understand your point, but maybe I’m morally corrupt I don’t know, I just don’t really stress about it when I eat meat. I guess I’m ok with being a “specieist”, and that my net enjoyment from eating meat is greater than the next suffering from the animal, because I’m human and they’re not.
My point was that there’s an end to taking an animal’s life for food’s sake. Whereas there is no meaningful end to animal torture, it’s sick, as is killing an animal for no purpose except as sport.
But you’re right, from the animal’s point of view, all of that sucks.
Good catch.
Fixed.
Weird moral engineering ; defies common sense.
First of all, we as human are omnivorous and are designed to eat meat. That’s a fact. So I won’t even argue about our prerogative as meat eaters. Therefore, killing an animal to eat it is a natural thing. Killing an animal just for the fun of killing shows an absolute disregard for life and nature. Don’t you see the difference ?
Second, when we kill animals to eat them, we kill livestock, which is abundant. A lion is a rare animal. If we were a society that bred lions for lion steaks, I would be as pissed off if that dentist scum poached a rare cow or pig in Africa.
So no, killing a common animal to eat it is not the same as trophy-killing a rare animal.
I wonder how it can be that a normal, reasonable adult does not understand that.
Even though you and I essentally come down on the same side of things on this, I would like to point out your above statement isn’t necessarily true. Teddy Roosevelt was an avid trophy hunter. He killed everything he came across for the fun it. (Though he said it brought him closer to nature.)
And, of course, Teddy Roosevelt is perhaps America’s most famous environmentalist and naturalist. He started the national park system and was big on conservation. Without Teddy, it’s likely we would have killed off wolves and bison (among other things) a long time ago.
So, while trophy hunting doesn’t sit well with me, I still believe most of the people that do it have Teddy’s view on the matter. It’s a small minority that are complete assholes with an absolute disregard for life and nature. Poachers, for example.
“Why are the Americans more concerned than us?” said Joseph Mabuwa, a 33-year-old father-of-two cleaning his car in the center of the capital. “We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants in Hwange.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/30/us-zimbabwe-wildlife-lion-idUSKCN0Q41VB20150730
The Romans were very democratic for their time, yet they had slaves.
Ancient Greeks were pretty rational for their time, yet they consulted oracles.
Different times, dude.
Also, great men do tend to have contradictions of their own. Nobody ever went after european monarchies like Napoleon did in the early 1800s, yet he proclamed himself emperor.
I doubt that this piece of shit dentist did anything good for nature, ever.
^ You need a little less talk and a lot more action. Donate to my chairity to ensure this NEVER happens again. I guarantee it.
the way i see it is that 100% of animals i eat and were raised for the sake of being meat wouldn’t have existed if we didn’t give life to them for the sake of being meat. how can you feel guilty about eating something that wouldn’t have existed without you raising it as food? i think its morally f-ed to be on the other side saying eating meat is cruel. not giving life to these animals is equally if not more cruel. being sad for an animal that wouldn’t have existed if the anti-meat crowd had their way is a philosophical failure. because these animals owe their lives to us, they owe their lives to us. its like God. he created us, and at any point, can rain fire and brimstone if he so pleases, according to the good book.
for this reason, this is why the dude killing the lion for sport probably wasn’t right and why eating your dog probably isn’t right. this has nothing to do with meatatarian vs. vegetarian. this has to do with being cruel to an animal in which we have limited domain and whose purpose is tourism not food.